Eric Cantor Defeated on Immigration Reform

From the start of the campaign, Brat was
aggressive in his opposition to immigration reform—attacking Cantor for making
tepid attempts to move the GOP toward a more moderate position on the issue.
But even Brat’s crude campaigning on immigration came with an anti-corporate twist.
“Eric Cantor doesn’t represent you, he represents large corporations seeking a
never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor,” the challenger argued.

Because Brat highlighted immigration policy as part of the
campaign that upset Cantor, it is likely that Republican leaders will move toward
an even sharper stance in opposition to meaningful reform. That likelihood led
Dream Act Coalition co-director Cesar Vargas to say that with Cantor’s
defeat—after being attacked as “too soft on immigration”—“there is no chance of
getting anything done legislatively on the subject through the summer, after
which it would be difficult to get anything done with presidential speculation beginning.”

Vargas argues that instead of offering House Republicans
more time to act on immigration reform, the president “should offer deportation
relief, and other forms of administrative relief, now.”

That’s an insightful response to the
Cantor defeat. Americans are

ready for immigration reform—polls
suggest that more than two-thirds

of Americans support a pathway to
citizenship and reject mass

deportation. A new Public Policy
Polling survey, conducted Tuesday

night in Cantor’s district, concludes
that “72 percent of voters in

Cantor’s district support the
bipartisan immigration reform

legislation on the table in Washington
right now to only 23 percent

who are opposed.”

The DC-insider storyline about this
being a great year for the

Republican establishment is undergoing
a rapid rewrite. For the first

time since the post was formally
established in 1899, a House majority

leader has been defeated in a bid for
renomination.

And as political

prognosticators, Republican stalwarts
and savvy Democrats search for

explanations, they are being forced to
consider complexities they had

not previously entertained—including
the prospect of conservatives who

are ready and willing to criticize big
business.

Eric Cantor, the face of the GOP
establishment, one of the party’s

most prodigious fundraisers and the
odds-on favorite to become the

next speaker of the House, lost his
Virginia Republican primary

Tuesday to a challenger who promised,
“I will fight to end crony

capitalist programs that benefit the
rich and powerful.”

The result shocked the not just the
Republican establishment but the

DC establishment. The shockwaves
continued Wednesday, as Republican

aides said Cantor would step down July
31from his position as the

second most powerful figure in the
House—ending the congressman’s run

as a Washington power player who
championed the interests of Wall

Street and corporate America.

That Wall Street connection was a
central theme of the challenge that

displaced Cantor.

Dave Brat, who defeated the number-two
Republican in the House by a

56-44 margin, tore into big business
almost as frequently as he did

the incumbent. “I am running against
Cantor because he does not

represent the citizens of the 7th
District, but rather large

corporations seeking insider deals,
crony bailouts and a constant

supply of low-wage workers,” declared
the challenger.

Cantor dismissed Brat as a “liberal
college professor.”

That was false—at least the liberal
part.

Though Brat is a professor who teaches
economics at Randolph-Macon

College in Ashland, Virginia, he is
definitely not a liberal. He ran

to the right of Cantor on the issues;
he outlined the premises of his

campaign in an extended interview with
the conservative National

Review; and he announced on his
Facebook page, “It’s time we elect a

conservative, not just a Republican, to
represent us.”

But Brat’s low-budget campaign came
with a twist. He ran as something

rare in American politics—so rare that
many political commentators

have a hard time comprehending the
calculus. On a number of issues,

the challenger positioned himself as an
anti-corporate conservative.

Indeed, as Politico noted during the
course of the campaign, “The

central theme of Brat’s campaign is
that Cantor is beholden to

business—specifically the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the Business

Roundtable.”

That does not make Brat any sort of
progressive, or even a populist by

most contemporary measures; nor does it
make his harsh right-wing

positions on a number of issues any
more noble than those same

positions when they are taken by
Republicans who regularly pocket

checks from Wall Street interests. Brat
has some ties to wealthy

libertarians, and he’s written about
“the moral foundations in Ayn

Rand”—even if he “says…he isn’t a
Randian.”

Yet Brat’s anti-corporate rhetoric
distinguished him from Cantor, and

from most prominent Republicans—whether
they identify with the

Republican “establishment” or the Tea
Party wing of a party that in

recent years has been defined by its
subservience to corporate

interests.

From the start of the campaign, Brat
was aggressive in his opposition

to immigration reform—attacking Cantor
for making tepid attempts to

move the GOP toward a more moderate
position on the issue. But even

Brat’s crude campaigning on immigration
came with an anti-corporate

twist. “Eric Cantor doesn’t represent
you, he represents large

corporations seeking a never-ending
supply of cheap foreign labor,”

the challenger argued.

Because Brat highlighted immigration
policy as part of the campaign

that upset Cantor, it is likely that
Republican leaders will move

toward an even sharper stance in
opposition to meaningful reform. That

likelihood led Dream Act Coalition
co-director Cesar Vargas to say

that with Cantor’s defeat—after being
attacked as “too soft on

immigration”—“there is no chance of
getting anything done

legislatively on the subject through
the summer, after which it would

be difficult to get anything done with
presidential speculation

beginning.”

Vargas argues that instead of offering
House Republicans more time to

act on immigration reform, the
president “should offer deportation

relief, and other forms of
administrative relief, now.”

That’s an insightful response to the
Cantor defeat. Americans are

ready for immigration reform—polls suggest
that more than two-thirds

of Americans support a pathway to
citizenship and reject mass

deportation. A new Public Policy
Polling survey, conducted Tuesday

night in Cantor’s district, concludes
that “72 percent of voters in

Cantor’s district support the
bipartisan immigration reform

legislation on the table in Washington
right now to only 23 percent

who are opposed.”

It may be that hard-core Republican
primary voters, particularly in

Southern states where primary turnout
is usually very low, will

continue to threaten GOP members of the
House and Senate who display

even the slightest moderation on the
issue. But the PPP data suggests

that wasn’t the only factor in Cantor’s
defeat. Indeed, recent polling